Lists all slides in the current PowerPoint presentation and returns each slide's index, layout, title, shape count, and text preview for quick content and structure review.
List all slides in the current presentation.
Returns the index, layout name, title, shape count and a short text preview for each slide.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return payload (index, layout name, title, shape count, text preview), which signals a non-destructive read, but it never explicitly states read-only behavior, whether very large decks are paginated or truncated, or how the text preview is shortened.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the exact fields returned. Nothing is redundant and every phrase adds information an agent would use.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does the necessary work of enumerating the returned fields, which substitutes for an output schema. The remaining gap is behavior on large presentations (truncation, preview length limits), which an agent may care about but is minor for a simple lister.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to convey and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly does not invent arguments.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('List all slides') scoped to the current presentation, and names the metadata returned for each slide. An agent can immediately distinguish this bulk-listing tool from the single-slide sibling inspect_slide.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: the word 'List' plus 'all slides' suggests a survey/overview step, and the per-slide summary fields hint at a cheap pre-scan before calling inspect_slide. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no instruction such as 'use inspect_slide for full details of one slide'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.